… reading 75327 rows (the slower of course, and that’s your SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS), the other has only 5479 rows. So it’s obviously faster for… again the same test with the very same amount of rows limited by the WHERE clause?

… two very different things – using index to restict amount of rows examined and using index ONLY to get all data query… columns so touching data does not add much. Belive me SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS can make things slower in many cases – if this is… what makes sense. Just do not assume it is ALWAYS faster as I’ve seen people doing.

… of using SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS was a bit faster, but then again this finding may have been tainted by the INNODB scalability bug you found.

Agree with Nadeem If you are using SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS, MySQL must calculate how many rows are in the full result set. However, this is faster than running the query again without LIMIT, because the result set need not be sent to the client.

… need to optimize, i use SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS. I did some tests too and this solution was faster than using 2 queries even if…

… the blog suggests. Running two queries is pretty much never faster than SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS when I use it. I’ve run a bunch…